Immune To Facts

Usually, I don't read or post comments on YouTube under President Obama's weekly addresses because they are filled with moronic, non-thinking statements - and really, who wants to be subjected on a Saturday morning to the fact that almost half the country's citizens are either brainwashed by the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh faction, or are complete morons, idiots and racists, or a combination of all of the above?

But after watching President Obama's innocuous address today regarding the remembrance of our troops on this Memorial Day weekend, I went against my better judgment and decided to see who could possibly disagree with the President on something as nonpartisan as "supporting the troops." That was my first mistake. The vitriol was palpable, you know, because there are those who insist on disagreeing with the President about everything. And so after reading a few comments from the Obama haters, I had to chime in and got into a debate with another commenter.

The following is what I can put together in hopefully the correct chronological order. I've also included links to references I made that aren't allowed in YouTube comments.

Broadway Carl: It's pretty amazing to see such ridiculously nasty comments regarding this particular video message. The hatred against this President astonishes me, even when he's making a statement about honoring the fallen on Memorial Day; a simple, mundane message that has been repeated by every President before our current one. And yet some will call this political exploitation. Those same idiots would also criticize him had he not made this type of statement. Q: How do you live with such hatred day to day? 

Joey Juarez 1: To quote Queen Moochelle Obama, it sounds like for the first time in your adult life, you are proud of your country, Carl...and what is amazing is that this president will single-handedly bring this country to it's knees and you don't care at all about that... 

BC: People like you say stuff like that all the time, joeyjuarez1, but you never have any facts to back it up. President Obama will "single-handedly bring this country to its knees"? How? By saving the auto industry? By destroying Al-Qaeda? By cutting taxes for 95% of all Americans? By stopping us from going over the financial cliff we were headed for? Prove it and stop talking in simplistic GOP/Fox News talking points. Don't just parrot what someone else says because you want to believe it, prove it. 

JJ1: He "saved" the auto industry???? Dude, he threw tens of thousands of non-union auto workers under the bus! Now that $85 million dollar bail out is part of the $6 Trillion dollar debt that he's racked up "single-handedly"!! AND he brags about it! 

BC: Auto bailout facts from 8/25/11 LA Times: "After a massive restructuring and several high-profile bankruptcies, a leaner, more aggressive auto industry is making a comeback, hiring workers and ramping up manufacturing plants. From a trough 2 years ago, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler and other auto companies have added almost 90K manufacturing jobs, a 14% increase, according to federal employment data." 

Every economist agrees over one million manufacturing related jobs were saved.

JJ1: Oh, wow...this dude...the LA Times?? The articles says "TAXPAYERS bailed out much of the U.S. auto industry. Now the CARMAKERS MIGHT be what saves the nation's economy from falling back into recession." Remove your blind Choombama cataracts and put your glasses on and learn to read and not "spin" the facts...what a liberal!

I'll pause at this point to point out that he's called me "dude" twice, referred to Michelle Obama as "Queen Moochelle," apparently in reference to the false meme that she's some kind of moocher, and now calls President Obama "Choombama." I don't even know what the fuck that means. But we continue:

BC: Yes, I used the conservative LA Times to make a point. And I did point out the article is 9 months old. But who made the decision? And if it was such a bad one, why is Romney trying to take credit for it when he originally wrote an op-ed titled, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"? And before you say that it was structured bankruptcies that he was in favor of, remember that there was no private equity flowing - even Bain passed on it. So the government was the only solution. Hell, even Bush knew that.

JJ1: He destroyed Al-Qaeda (this from a man who didn't want them referred to as "terrorists")...he is sending 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS in military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood...and the terrorism continues...


BC: If you're going to claim funds going to the Muslim Brotherhood, you should read up on these pesky little things called facts instead of Breitbart or Beltway Pundit.
 

From The Guardian: "US officials and lawmakers said Sec of State Clinton has determined that it's in the US national interest to allow $1.3 billion in military assistance to flow. She also certified that Egypt is meeting its obligations to the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, which frees up an additional $200 mil in economic aid... All of the $1.3 billion in foreign military financing is obligated to pay U.S. defense and security companies for contracts they have to supply equipment and support for the Egyptian military." 

So no, it's not going to the Muslim Brotherhood. Good try, though.

 

Need I mention Osama Bin Laden is dead? Maybe, but I didn't.

JJ1: There you go, leaving out facts to "spin" the article your way once again...the beginning of the article says: "The OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TOLD CONGRESS on Thursday it will waive democracy requirements to release up to $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt despite concerns that the country is backsliding on commitments it made to democratic governance and rule of law." Read and don't spin, stupid!

BC: Continue reading, jackass. It's going to US contractors. "All of the $1.3 billion in foreign military financing is obligated to pay U.S. defense and security companies for contracts they have to supply equipment and support for the Egyptian military." Not the government, not the Muslim Brotherhood, the military.
 

My main point remains: the guy can't even commend the troops on Memorial Day without guys like you criticizing it as some ulterior motive. You'd think everyone would agree with something so nonpartisan, but no. Hate and fear trumps even thanking the troops.

JJ1: Carl, buddy, you're missing the point...this guy has lied over and over and over again that when we see him on camera, when we hear his lying voice and false words filled with false promises, we can't help but scorn everything that comes out of his mouth...like one politician stated to Choombama 'YOU LIE!!!" and he continues to lie and you believe him... 

BC: Joey, I'm asking you to show me what he's lied about. Give me one example where he's been caught in a red handed lie, you know, like Romney saying Obama has "doubled the deficit." Just give me a few examples if he's lied so much. 

JJ1: So, Carl, do you REALLY think that Obama has our best interests at heart? Are you really buying into the lie that things are getting better? One only needs to look around and see what is really going on all around us...businesses closing down, multiple families living together to make ends meet, not being able to travel across town to see relatives because gas is too high, opting for no-name brand products at grocery stores, less out-to-eat evenings or "sharing plates" at restaurants...really? 

BC: Yes, I do. Maybe it's not as fast as we'd like, but things are getting better. Unemployment is slowly coming down. The only reason it isn't lower is because public sector work is being slashed, you know, that "smaller government" stuff. We were losing 700,000 jobs a month 3½ years ago. Stock market is up 5000 points in the last 3 years. Retail and growth are up. Gas prices are down from this time last year and have dropped the last seven weeks in a row (not that any administration can affect gas prices directly, that's just another straw man argument). 

JJ1: The WSJ: Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits - "As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multigenerational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government." 

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.

With increased government spending comes the need to pay for it, and if taxes aren’t going to increase that means deficits. Nearly three-quarters of Americans blame the U.S. budget deficit on spending too much money on federal programs, according to a Gallup poll last year, but when the conversation turns to which programs to cut, the majorities are harder to find. For example, 56% of respondents oppose making significant changes to Social Security or Medicare.

The more people who receive benefits, the harder it’s going to be to make cuts, and it’s never popular to raise taxes. In some respects that argues for letting a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that is set to automatically hit in 2013 take effect. There’s just one problem: the Congressional Budget Office says it would sink the economy into recession.

BC: I agree with your entire last comment. So where is the lie? The CBO also says that Obama's current budget would decrease the debt by $2 trillion over 10 years, while Romney's would raise the debt $5 trillion over the same period. But it's Obama that's pointed to as spending like a drunken sailor when he's lowered the budget each of the last three years.  

JJ1: The Food Stamp President 

BC: So those people that you just used as an example of things not getting better, you'd cut off their government assistance until they get back on their feet? 

JJ1: Senator Obama crossed the country promising that his campaign, and administration would be the most transparent in history. He promised that he wouldn’t allow lobbyists in his staff, or money in his funds. That was in 2007, as it stands today the President has accepted millions of dollars from lobbyists and special interest groups. The President even took it one step farther by appointing many of those lobbyists into positions of power and influence. 

BC: I'm not entirely happy with it, but hey, it's politics.  

"...another watchdog, Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, praised Obama’s rules as “a good starting place” and urged patience in judging their efficacy. 

“Any good set of ethics rules has the opportunity for waivers, but if the waivers become the rule, rather than the exception, then you have to look at whether the waivers are being sought too frequently or whether there’s a problem with the rule. I don’t think we’re at that point yet.”

I did fail to mention that, while not as transparent as we hoped the Obama administration would be, there's no doubt that they've been more transparent than any previous administration has been. I also didn't bring up the "No lobbyists" rule was defined as no one who'd been a lobbyist the previous two years - with few exceptions that continues to be the case. And while I may consider it a "promise broken," I wouldn't call it an outright lie. Lies are intentionally told to conceal something or to malign another. But I digress...

JJ1: "President Obama falsely claimed that no Republicans in the Senate voted for the payroll tax cut. “Virtually every Senate Republican voted against the tax cut last week,” he told reporters. 

There's only one huge problem. The statement is completely false. According to the Senate Roll Call, twenty Republicans voted for the measure to proceed, including Idaho's Mike Crapo and James Risch. On the other hand, every Democrat but one voted against it." 

BC: Don't try conflating the two separate bills (I know it's not you necessarily, but the author of the article you site). 

S. 1917 (Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2011) was a 51-49 vote. No Republican voted for it. 

S.1931, which the author tries to confuse the reader with, could be more accurately described as ONLY 20 Republican Senators voted for it. It failed 20-78, which means 27 Republican Senators voted AGAINST it, with all the rest of the Democrats. 

JJ1: Carl, vote for Obama in Nov 2012, ok...you are all too happy to do so...thank you for contributing to the ruin of the lives of the American people...we thank you so much...your blind eyes will never let you see...your drone mind will never change...continue to support this sheep in wolves clothing...not until all of American's cities turn into what Detroit is today will you fully understand what will happen if this man stays in office...good luck... 

BC: I will, and you'll thank your lucky stars in avoiding a President Romney who says things depending on which way the wind blows any given day. Thanks for having the conversation though. I appreciate it. Good luck.

And there you have it. My good faith attempt to try and enlighten the unenlightenable. Faced with facts, JJ1 decides to give up and thank me for dooming the future of the country with my intended vote for President Obama in November. I'll never waste my time like that again.

My Manifesto

POSTED BY JHW22

I am admittedly NOT a presidential scholar. Aside from not being alive longer than the last six presidents’ terms, I have only become a serious observer of politics in the last five years. In that time I have become a mom, volunteered for a number of organizations reaching across issues I knew little about prior to my assistance, and tried to just keep up with the topics of the day. In NO WAY could I add to my list of priorities the self-education of every presidency prior to my birth, nor the presidencies of my infancy, adolescence and teenage years at times in my life when that type of subject was nowhere near important. So, with that said, I am not able to go toe to toe with anyone on what FDR, Truman, Carter or Reagan did on any given maneuver or policy fight.

But what I can say is this: I would bet that most people who make comparisons to Obama and any other President aren’t as knowledgeable on the analytics as they may like to sound. It is easy to say, “Obama needs to go all FDR on the Republicans” because it sounds good and you could probably find hundreds of blog posts, articles and Daily Kos diaries stating the same idea. But how many of the people who wrote those actually studied FDR and truly understand the nuances of his deal-making, his compromises, his obstacles and his political ammunition? How many people who make such easy statements actually have the capacity to compare with such certainty as to summarize the current President as a failure based on the FDR metrics? How many of those people are able to take scenario A of FDR and properly compare it to scenario A of Obama and not only zero in on the exact similarities but also be able to make enough matches with such similarities as to be able to make a complete judgment that the scenarios are so exact that the only outcome must be that Obama should take every identical step FDR took?

Even people who have been alive and aware during previous administrations don’t know any more of the inner-workings and logistical maneuverings that actually took place. Americans seem to think we know everything when actually, we don’t know shit. Because we read it somewhere does not make the information complete. We also tend to think that if we know A through G, then obviously the next letter is H. Well, that’s true of the alphabet but not politics.

I will concede that some of the authors of the “Obama should be FDR” pieces do know a lot about FDR. I am sure there are many who have read enough biographies and histories to have a fair handle on the situation. However, any one of them who then tries to convince me that the scenarios of each president are equal may have read history but are most definitely avoiding the reality that there is no possible way that any two scenarios faced by any two presidents can be exactly the same. You CAN NOT take a policy discussion or decision without seeing a million details that do not match history. Just as I could not figure out your ATM pin number without a multitude of potential combinations, far more possible mixtures of personalities, opposition, coordination, dollar amounts, concessions, conflicts, time-lines, external impacts, internal consequences, etc, etc, etc, mean that NO COMPARISON can be made that should or could form any judgment on the current president.

(By the way, you can substitute FDR for Truman or Carter or Reagan or Lincoln.)

Now, I am called naïve, a bot, a whatever Paul Krugman or Glenn Greenwald want to call me, but frankly, I find the naiveté in any person who thinks you can narrow an opinion of the current president down to a overwhelming simplistic and far-reaching avoidance of reality that the past is not the present. We can LOOK to the past for guidance but we can’t pretend that the past can be duplicated. In comparing Obama to any previous president is beyond simplistic and far-reaching, it is a stubborn avoidance of the frustration that HE isn’t the problem. Rather than deal with the reality of the actual problems we face, it’s far easier to say he isn’t being FDR enough. We may as well say he isn’t Atticus Finch enough. Because, although Atticus is a fictional character, the demand that Obama act exactly like another person in another time with different problems, different players, different options, is as fictionally-based as wishing he were someone who never existed. Although, technically, there was a real person Harper Lee based Atticus on, but you get my point.

SO, I do not accept any comparisons or evaluations of Obama based on prior presidents. If that’s all you’ve got, and if I were a professor, I’d send you back to rewrite your entire thesis and tell you to avoid the “Handmaid’s Tale”/”1983”/”Animal Farm” aspect of your analysis and give me your actual understanding of the options he actually faces, with the tools he actually possesses, against the challenges he actually has to overcome TODAY. THEN tell me, step-by-step and in non-black and white ways what he could have done and what he can do that would have made any other choices valid and more successful than he has been.

Let’s take the public option. Tell me how Barack Obama (and NOT FDR) could have succeeded with that. Base it on what he said and not what anonymous reports stated. Before making assumptions of what was said in back room meetings, before assuming reports are based in pure fact and no spin, look at the situation he was presented with. Consider the possibility he was on the phone every hour, talking with members of Congress (because according to the PBS documentary on the official White House photographer, Pete Souza, Obama was, in fact, on the phone more times than the media reported).

Next, consider the possibility that the media killed the public option. The American public was supportive early on. What happened? Things like “death panels” and “kill the bill” became the media focus. The media called the public option DOA long before Obama conceded, publicly at least, that it wasn’t going to survive. The very organizations who determine whether Obama’s message gets out to the American people pre-wrote history. They called it dead before anyone could actually make a dent in negotiations. In my honest opinion, that empowered the right by suggesting the possibility and by distracting the left from the discussion. The right pounced on the left’s key issue and the left freaked out over Obama. No one was left to fight the right and the lies were able to take hold in the American public.

Obama stayed on message but a certain faction of the left was so damn frazzled that we started running after our own quarterback and caused a fumble that was scooped up by the opposition who then ran to within field goal range. We won the game but barely. We would have creamed them had we protected the quarterback. But we lost focus of our priorities. Today, the law we have is helping me personally.

If everyone can pretend that they know what FDR would have done, then I suggest that people stop and consider that we would have had a public option today if the media had reported facts as opposed to speculation. We would have had a public option had Democrats held strong together and played the plays as planned rather than forgetting how to play altogether.

But would’ve, could’ve, should’ve aren’t relevant. I am saving money. My son is covered despite a pre-existing condition. My life is better because of what DID take place.

Now, without going issue by issue or point by point through the last two years, let me say this and ask that you apply it to all you have assumed, decided, declared:

What do you KNOW? Do you easily accept every report you read? Does any part ever sound just not right? Do you have questions that the report didn’t raise? And when you have that feeling, when you still have questions, what do you do with it? When you read another source that says the same thing, so you then say, “Aha, it must be true”? If you’ll recall, I have said that Republicans tend to think that if 100 websites say “bibbity bobbity boo in Kalamazoo” then it must be as written. It never occurs to them that all 100 sites using the phrase word-for-word means someone copied and pasted. 99 people copied the words of 1 person but the idea is still that first person’s. The other 99 stopped short of analysis and just repeated. THAT is not confirmation. It’s repetition. The Democrats don’t do that specifically. We don’t really copy and paste entire articles and try to pass that off as Woodward-style fact-checking. We’re too proud of our own writing abilities that we at least re-write what we read.

Democrats take an idea and revise, add their own flourishes, put their own voice to it and state it is absolute fact whether or not they ever put a second of their articulate genius toward actually finding out if that initial idea were true, unbiased or simply relevant. No, if an idea sounds kick-ass, Democrats rush out to tell the same idea in their own way without bothering to come up with an idea on their own. Inevitably, the writers who love to share other people’s ideas in their own words, accidentally slip up and start using the same words or phrases created by the first writer to summarize the situation. Presently the words are “cave” and “fight” although no one can truly articulate what either means to them. It’s really just a feeling. I remember the first time I saw “cave” used in regards to Obama and the Bush tax cuts. Now it is THE word used by all Democrats who don’t want him to but a cent or a day – even though they may not even know why a certain dollar amount is so sacred.

No one wants him to “cave” yet I’ve seen countless times where people have said they would be OK if the amount were raised to another number. How can we demand he not cave and then be willing to compromise on the number? It’s because the idea of him not caving sounds good but no one has really defined that meaning for themselves, let alone the masses of people who read that and revise that. The word has become overused by people who imprinted on it without analyzing the meaning. The same people want Obama to “draw a line in the sand” yet they really have no clue what or where the line should be, they are just certain that a line MUST be drawn. They are certain that they know a line is needed. To me, the demand is hollow without any true understanding of what the magic line should be.

Democrats don’t think beyond black and white any more than the Republicans do. For example, the federal pay freeze. The accepted assumption is that Obama froze federal employee pay to give, without a “fight”, some phantom concession to the Republicans. I have not seen, perhaps it is out there but I’ve missed it, the mention that over the last several months as the private sector has created jobs, the government has laid people off. Yes, we have had consistent job LOSSES in the government sector. To me, a pay freeze is the alternative to further layoffs of federal employees. And to me, it is a legitimate alternative. But the quick assumption was that Obama “caved”. Now, Obama did not give the reason I see in his speech. He didn’t say it’s to save federal employees from loosing their jobs. But right now we need him emphasizing job creation and not massive losses. He had to put a stop to the bleeding but Democrats won’t see that because that isn’t the message being fed. And in this case, although I wish he’d put that message out there, I can see why he won’t. But few Democrats will search beyond the blogs and articles and cable tv to find the meaning that makes sense.

In summary, I COULD go further point by point through the last two years and “prove” why Obama has stayed as true to his promises as the best presidents of our history. I could remind everyone that he has always said he is here to work with all, for all. I could point out the challenges he faces of Fox News and right-wing blogs and racism and corporate money and the Supreme Court, and on and on. But none of that is relevant to my overall point.

The overall point is that Americans stopped thinking for themselves. Today Obama was giving a speech on the economy. MSNBC cut away. CNN either cut away or never aired it. CSPAN wasn’t airing it. But www.whitehouse.gov was live-streaming it. And yet people say Obama doesn’t talk about the economy. This is one of a hundred speeches I have watched or listened to him give. He talks about the economy every day. Someone from his administration is talking about the economy every day. So why do people think he isn’t? It’s because the media controls the message and because Americans are too lazy to seek out the information. Americans assume that if the media isn’t bringing the information to them, it just must not exist. And when the media speaks, we parrot.

And then we blame the president for what we don’t hear or what we do hear.

So, perhaps I should have been clearer in earlier posts. Perhaps I haven’t put the correct message out there. Perhaps I am still failing. But I refuse to consider worthy a conversation with people who either live in a constant state of comparing two centuries, two presidents and two extremely complex realities who also rely on the very media we have all watched disintegrate over the last decade. Any Democrat who will pick and choose which articles must be true based on some in-grained cynicism or some need to justify their own desires to pretend as if they are all-knowing, are frankly, in my opinion, not a part of any solution. They may have access to, and more frequently use, real data and facts, but the spin they choose to place on the reality of today suggests to me they are as unproductive and obstructionist as Republicans.

What I look for in a true discussion is the lack of catch-phrases. If you use the buzzwords of the day, I can only assume you have either accepted others’ ideas without even applying your own verbiage. Or you have subconsciously adopted others’ thinking and therefore are going to be zombie-like in your debate. There is no getting through to the latter. So, I only want to discuss with people who have asked themselves how they formed their ideas, which sources they used, why those sources, and have they really sat and thought something through before taking a stand one way or another. If you are an expert on FDR and can tell me that 4 out of 5 scenarios of each debate Obama faces are 90% similar, then have at it. But if you’ve never actually studied the papers, letters, speeches, reports, etc. of FDR and can’t tell me with any certainty that 4 out of 5 scenarios of each debate are the same as what Obama faces now, then I don’t want to read the letters “F D R” in your response to me. (Again, you can substitute any previous president). Oh, and I should add, that when I hear journalists I actually respect say things like “Truman never polled the military” and then a month later say “when Truman polled the military” I call bullshit. And when I see other people parrot one or both of those talking points, even talking points from journalists I respect, I also call bullshit. When it comes to the DADT survey, it was NEVER about whether to repeal or not; the survey was to help the military effectively plan the repeal through effective policies and education. That is something we should honor – a prepared military. Instead, the media pre-misconstrued the report until they saw the results and have since done a 180 on the way they report on it. Thus, I see average Democrats doing the same. And that is one example where I say, unequivocally, that I have watched the media messaging seep into the subconscious of Democrats.

So, if you use any word of the day, convince me, in your own words, that you have thought through the situation on all levels. Show me devil’s advocate thinking and maybe then we can get somewhere. But if you tell me you think black simply because the media says so or because Republicans say white, and you can’t even comprehend gray in your logic, then I don’t have time for you.

I have spent HOURS developing my opinions, my perspective, my understanding. In all of this I have concluded that the media is mostly a rapid-fire, beat the next guy, soap opera. And sadly, many Democrats, who I expect to be smarter, fall for the agenda, messaging, tone and mood set by those we shouldn’t be accepting with such enthusiasm. Yet, Democrats pick up their language, mood, tenor and assumptions for no reason I can comprehend.

Anyone who parrots the media is not worthy of another moment of my time. I have serious thinking to do and only want to participate with serious thinkers. I have a lot to learn and expect only those with integrity to teach me. If you aren’t that person, I implore you to try to be that person. Change how you get your information. Change how you process it. Change why you believe what you do. And finally, find your own damn voice in it all. You don’t have to write or speak eloquently, but know that what you think and say is your own and not some media-tainted creation.

Wake up and rub the newspaper ink off your face. We all know what the media has come to. So why do you let it be your guide?

Brain Dump Op Ed

POSTED BY JHW22

I have been avoiding politics news for the most part lately -- in part because I have a boat load of stuff going on in my personal life including health insurance wrangling and medical care for my son which has me stressed beyond my norm. Because politics news can send me in a rage in a matter of seconds, I have had to chill a bit. I have reached a max when it comes to bullshit and crazy. I can't stand the inability to make sense of even sources I appreciate and enjoy. Every six months or so I ask, "BUT WHAT CAN WE DO"? I get tired of venting and ranting with like-minded friends and against idiots when I see a pervasive confusion. We are confused. We are a nation of mixed-up, falsely-led, nit-picking, too-much-information-to make-sense-of-most-things-so-we-just-go-with-whatever, group of people. I spend part of every day wondering how to get through to people who think differently from me simply because they do not know the facts. I think that if I can just inform them, they'll at least think things through rather than having opinions based on whatever it is they base their views on. I think that if I mock or beg or appease or something, anything, people I actually care about will believe ME over Glenn Beck.

But they don't.

So I go through a funk when I feel as if the American culture is eating itself and those of us who try, through this blog and elsewhere, to make sense of it so that others will see the common sense, are desperately trying as we slowly lose our minds.

I stand with President Obama today more than ever. And one main reason is because of my belief that his greatest challenge is not policy CHANGE but behavior CHANGE. Americans were not and are not ready to think big picture or long term. And many think he is a failure as a leader. But I don't think so. He is the constant. He is governing exactly as I knew he would and he is setting a perfect example of how to be a productive, responsible and ethical citizen of a country that demands its people pay attention.

I didn't always follow politics this closely and I imagine there will come a day when I won't have the opportunity to follow even a fraction I follow now. But I do know that I am a better citizen today than I was before Barack Hussein Obama ran for President. He set a standard I can only try to emulate. I try to reserve my snark and hate but I fail miserably. I try to learn as much as I can but I only have so many hours and brain cells. I try to see where he's going and why and I usually grasp his goal even if it's different than my ideal vision.

Obama became a celebrity with his Red States/Blue States speech because we all knew he was right. We are a nation of differing opinions. And yes, it's true that we are entitled to our own opinions and not our own facts, but how people interpret one set of facts can vary. Polls should be irrelevant but we all use them when they work to our advantage. And a fact is only as good as the detail it focuses on. And as Americans we are quick to vilify the person who focuses on a different poll or a different fact because that doesn't hold the same significance as the poll or fact we want to highlight. And so we continue to thrash against each other solely to thrash against each other.

I keep hearing talk about Democrats not wanting Obama to compromise with Republicans; he tried that and failed. They want him to be a hard-ass, a walking penis, a man's man. They want him to go against the very thing we admired most about him. Why? Because what he is doing is hard and it highlights the differences that even our party doesn't want to concede. We don't want to say we'll give an inch even if it means we gain a mile. We'd rather play tit for tat. And frankly, I am tired of my own party for playing that game. I want us to be the smart, sensible and compassionate party we value and take each discussion, each policy, each potential compromise at face value and have the debate point by point on the merits we always stand by. I don't want our party to fight against something we would have once supported just because we are tired of the Republicans. I don't want us to let a detail get in the way of a greater success because we can't possibly let them have a win.

I don't want the current Democratic party to become the current Republican party.

Several months ago many liberal bloggers, analysts, journalists and friends (who shall all remain nameless) were saying the same thing: Screw the deficit! Democrats didn't want to make any decisions with the deficit as a factor. It was irrelevant how the deficit could be impacted because we need to barrel through this recession. Well, we aren't in a recession, jobs are growing, the deficit is declining. And now Democrats are obsessed with the deficit because of the Bush tax cuts. The same people, from MY party, who were saying "screw the deficit" are now saying we can't extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy because it will hurt the deficit.

I was one of the few who would say I wanted to help the economy AND the deficit and I faced ridicule as the naive one. And now, the same people are making the deficit the number one reason to stick it to the rich.

I want the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire for the same reason I wanted them to months ago: the deficit. I want to shrink our deficit and our debt so we aren't held back in negotiations with China. I want the US to be able to demand better relations in different parts of the world but we have no leverage as long as we are in debt to the very people we demand changes from.

So, as I sit here feeling the old addiction of politics news creeping back into my life, as I have resolved some of my personal struggles, I wonder if I will find myself being more annoyed with the Republicans or the Democrats. Chances are I will be accused of making some false equivalency for even saying that but I don't really care. I imagine the people who would accuse me of that are the very people pissing me off as it is.

More Of This, Please

It's time to start calling a spade a spade, or in these cases, a moron a moron.





I do disagree with Tom Brokaw on one point: he said that this is not a partisan issue. I think that is complete bullshit. The is ALL about partisanship and unfortunately, it's about racism. Previous presidents have spoken to students without incident. Of course, those previous presidents weren't black; their citizenship wasn't ridiculously questioned; their religion was never questioned or brought up as an issue, save for Kennedy.

The problem today is that with a 24 hour news cycle, there is too much time to fill with actual news, so we became witness to the ushering in of the era of Infotainment. What used to be a public service has now become a for-profit news industry that has to be controversial and titillating, and if there isn't any "news" that fits that description, the media manufactures it.

All one has to do is to look at last month's town hall meetings full of disinformed, idiotic, tea party freaks blubbering about how they "want their country back." All you have to do it witness the hyperventilating about health care reform to know that as far as the mainstream media is concerned, "if it bleeds, it leads." The uneducated town hallers protecting the insurance company sodomizers in comparison to actual polls showing that a majority of Americans want a public option included in health care reform is a perfect example of the blind leading the moronic, otherwise these people would realize that they are opposing something that would benefit them... not that that's anything new for middle and lower class Republican voters.

So I'd like to see more of this, please. More of so called "journalists" actually being reporters instead of stenographers. I want them to start calling a spade a spade again. I want them to earn their paychecks and dig a little deeper to show their audience the facts, instead of showing the truth and a damnable lie as two equal sides of an argument.

It's not only time to take our country back from the 30% freaks, it's time for journalists to take their journalism back.